I didn’t read sci-fi for ages. It used to be my favourite genre, still remember my childhood years sitting in the tiny primary school library. Haunted by the vision of getting into one good middle school, I might permit myself sometimes some freedom by immersing into a totally exotic and alien world. I hunted for the newest “sci-fi world” magazine in thirst. Now I found out Liu is one of the famous writers for that magazine I read then. I probably have come across his short novels along with many other excellent writers 8 years ago… ok, this past made this book bring some sentimental and nostalgic tang.
\
First- sentimentally, reading the novel felt like standing by one cliff. You are staring at the bottomless abyss of darkness. You stared, you felt cold. You were terrified.
I had similar feelings when reading the Arcadia-standing alone at the coastline of wildness. the shortish life and the flaming death.
I recalled reading Manfred. When Manfred summoned the spirits of Alpes and asked for “self-oblivion” The spirit replied: “we are immortal, and do not forget. We are eternal, and to us the past is as the future, present.”
He replied: “will death bestow it on me?”
Manfred is not a sci-fi, maybe these spirits are suspected of higher dimensional creatures I know not. But the philosophical essence might be alike: we mortals, doomed to be die, yet know not the future nor when the tickling ends, is always staring at that cliff.
But is it just about personal life and death?
Why is the darkness terrifying? Because it does not only engulf you, it engulfs your grave and your epitaph and everyone who might read your epitaph. The whole human species is falling-once from its birth to its inevitable death. Revolutions and reforms are like swimmers in the river- the direction will never be changed- every fest has its end.
So after finished, I recited Manfred’s lines for a dozen of times. Is not the unpredictability and one-directional movement that made the being feel it exist? (Ok that’s too meta-physical) Give life to the time.
Good point: I love his writing style. The colors are striking and vivid. The analogy and metaphors are pretty apt. I was frequently impressed by the grandiosity he deciphered in the most common trivialities (when he likens the struggling ants with human beings), and the approachability in the most spectacular scenes (the simile between the space ship and the ancient cliffs with human caves). It is hard to imagine how he made those unexplainable chains between two wholly different concepts and aroused the universal sensation of sublimity. As an aestheticist and escapist who seek literature as my heavenly refuge, I would give him 5-star simply for that.
I also love how he employed politics and sociology to model the human society and this cosmic “clashing of civilizations”. They appear to me like an IR realism model with divisions much more deeply carved. The dark forest theory and the deterrence part is amazing. It’s like a chronology of real history. He even pointed out the Zeitgest changes according to the “interstellar relations”. The hard scientific part which I can only 70% understand (I AM a physics lover and I may understand more if I made that attempt… But I just want to see how the story develops and I confess I didn’t comprehend them very well). But I can tell it is hard scientific and fairly sound based.
The characters are also impressive. I actually discussed that with my friend Carol. I personally presume they are metaphorical archetypes rather than real human beings. Liu personally agreed that they are “tools”. You could tell from their Chinese Name: Luo Ji stand for Logic, Cheng Xin stand for kind heart and humane virtue. Zhuang Yan to Luo is like a conceptualization and culmination of human love: which is unreasonable, religious, artificial, and even fake (there are suspects that Zhuang was hired by UN to be his Muse and Eros). Liu is implying this when some officer said “love is a concept” to Luo Ji. He uses Goethe’s saying that “I love you and it has nothing to do with you”. I also doubted Luo’s love is narcissistic by its essence. He created this apostle of femininity as a refuge for his emotional turbulence. He extended his love to the physical matters like Red Wine, the Fireplace, the Eden-like utopia, even that mythological picture. When he said “I could have accompanied you more” before his death, with teary eyes, he said this to Mona Lisa- not to Zhuang. Liu has made it explicit: Zhuang’s melancholy was not a given female character, but ironically caused by Luo and the mission she carried (I almost felt the pleasure of retaliation when he knew the truth that she was sent on purpose). She left him and was long lost in the history. He is saying to the picture, to every surrounding matter that aroused his nostalgic and sweet sensation, and indirectly-to himself. This figure stands for a woven dream, but for which humans could willingly sacrifice and crucify themselves, making the most playful chevalier one martyr. Sorry I write this part beyond the length, cuz I have similar wooden cottage in my mind. I have similar lover sat by the fireplace, Like Milton said “Came vested all in white, pure as her mind”. Thus I can resonate with this poetic symptom, and of course, absolute human absurdity!
Apart from the religious conceptualization of Love, I also feel there is the relationship between Zhuang and Luo realizes the utopian pursuit of human being- a non-language communication and unity. It is philosophical here- the humans’ limits of perception is constrained by language. The more we tried to accurately portray the world or communicate, the more we ended up producing rough distorted outlines. With such a fluid tool, we can never understand each other nor can we understand the universal laws. But what is interesting here is that Zhuang and Luo achieve this non-linguistic communication. Their hearts were echoed by almost supernatural force, their thoughts were delivered through expression in the eyes. Sorry, Don Juan, but it is exactly what Don Juan did after he met Haidee. They don’t know each other’s language; they are living in one barbarian island far from any civilizations. Their love is unconditional. Therefore, we can see this paradox in the relationship: on the one hand, it is purely absurd, self-centric, narcissistic, and all about concepts. On the other hand, it is free of language and social convention, abandoning any tools of communication, that is real inter-personal and Romantic (with Capital R)
I guess Cheng Xin’s role is the reflection of both human virtue and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not the opposite to humanity, for the latter is fundamentally unrooted and eerily vulnerable to paradoxical moral choices. She can represent most leaders- for the causes of her failure are the same of the failure of most leaderships. The informational asymmetry (she barely knew the dimensional attack), the irrational idolization her followers that she couldn’t stop and eventually tying her mind on to the blind wheel , the conscience when she was supposed to execute cruelty (Machiavelli is giggling), and her self-righteous narcissism. Whether virtue is selfishness needed longer philosophical debate. But we can see clearly which side Liu is taking. He mentioned many times how Cheng found herself the centre of universe with all stars rotating around her; how she was tempted by her image of being the sword keeper. Liu has made the judgement that her pursuit of virtue and humanity is partially narcissistic. This is not an issue in a peaceful society as we judge people not by motivation but by consequence. Her achievement would be praised, if not in the time of revolution and a crisis more serious than a thousand revolutions. Do we need raison d’ Etat? Do we need to be as cunning as a fox and as cruel as a lion? Pragmatically, Liu took the classic realism side: this unreflective unreserved quest for virtue is fatal. Believe me or not, she reminds me of Robespierre. Of course, the latter is more tragic and culpable than her. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Lastly, the patriarchal part. Gosh, I’m not a PC gal. I’m not saying Liu is a sexist, evidently he is not and sexist is too reductionism. What interests me is to read against the grain, to read according to the text and identify the gender entrenchment from the semantics and symbols. So, to begin with, I understand this book is serialized in the newspaper, targeted at a minor group of readers, who might be dominantly male. The author needs some spices to hook his audience as well (every author does!) That explains why some characters are very comedian and some are modelled out of cliches. Females were all slimy and so on. But there are still two critiques I would like to make.
First one is extracted from the discussion between Carol and me. If Zhuang, this sorrowful tender female, is intended as a metaphoric epitome of femininity, it will be of great literary value and nothing more to be said. The problem is that there should be a distance between the archetype and the realistic person. What counts as an archetype? The first character that came to my mind is Don Juan’s Haidee. She came to Don Juan like a fairy of childish purity and female charisma. As it happened after shipwreck in one uncivilized island, it is easy to see the underlying ironies and metaphorical meanings. The author of Don Juan successfully isolated Haidee in the ocean of metaphors, shrouded his idealized womanhood in the mythology of literature and philosophy. However, Carol is correct to point out that the same distance is lacked in Liu’s work. Zhuang is too true-to-life in fulfilling the popular image from the patriarchal perspective. The author did make some reflections, which are not adequate to let his readers realize the absurdity and artificiality of this character.
Another critique is less political but literary- some characters’ behaviors are not justified. It appears to me that each character is the embodiment of their idea and faith without hesitance or inner conflicts. The flatness of protagonists might be necessary in such a historical chronology and epic novel. But certainly, some characters are less humane than others. I could sense the artificial brush stroke in their reaction and how they are serving the plot.
It is, I agree, illegitimate to purpose corrections from political and moral view. For aesthetics is moral-free. However, if writers want to do the job of the god- if they want to create something, they should not stoop to the prevailing social discourses that are produced by the current transient and unjust power hierarchy. These discourses are not self-conscious language- they are cants. Doctor Johnson mentioned this point that when you say “I feel sorry about the weather” you do not really feel pity- it is not a meaningful sentence but a posture to show your compliance with the social manner- language is formatted and degenerated into futile devices. You give up thinking and creating and accuracy. You are repeating those cants that are circulating by the authorities and subjects to the power structure. That might be the daily routine of a citizen but should never be the job of an author. What if, just imagine , as our only telescope to perceive the world, lost all its vitality? Liu depicts the ladies in one stereotype way, the fatherhood, militaristic familial patriarchy is frequently mentioned. I spotted no distance nor irony nor reflection in these portrayals- the author invited the readers to identify with the text rather than observing or doubting the phenomenon. Anyway, it might look like a tangent but I feel it’s necessary. To conclude: when the writer uses language to reinforce the given power hierarchy and dominant discourse subconsciously or consciously, their creativity is in danger. They yield their freedom of thinking and reflection to the repetitive cants. They are becoming one radio passively incepting the white noise of their age.
Cliches and sentimentality are two primary characters of poets, which shall be forgiven. Profit is legitimately to pursue. There is nothing wrong to entertain your readers using the most fashionable wits and jokes. The poem, according to Virginia Woolf, is actually a bargain between the poet and the time she lives in. But bear in mind the power of the language. Some cliches are more dangerous than others as they are confirming the power structure, which implicates realistic oppression. Burke is right: “Human mischiefs derive from words”. A writer, an orator, a politician, any media workers, possessing both the maneuvering talents and publicity, should always be cautious not abusing the power of words.
(omg I feel I’m speaking on behalf of Byron’s ghost)
Overall, I will give a 5 out of 5 rate. Highly recommend. This book is beyond my expectation (which is already quite high before reading) and worth every reputation.